Not sure this can be considered an ideology, but this thread looks like the best place to put this.

While I haven't lost my political values like the writer of the below claims that he has, my attitude towards the left has become very left-like in regards to how I view them and want to see them treated. Is that petty of me? Probably. But I dgaf anymore. That's what the left has taught me. I also think there may be a lot of people on the right who would see a lot of this guy in them as well. Not necessarily 100%, but a goodly chunk at least. His view kinda even explains how Trump happened when you get right down to it. The left is now paying the Piper for years of abuse they piled onto the right. It's been kinda fun to watch so far. But Trump was a Democrat before he was a Republican! Don't care. But Trump lied about... Don't care. But Trump... Don't care. But... Don't care.

Anyway, without further ado, here's one conservative's, "Up yours!" to the left.

How Losing My Political Values Helped Me Gain My Freedom [Warden]

There's a frustrating game that the left plays with conservatives. It's an Alinksy tactic called, "Make them live up to their values." Now, living up to one's values isn't a bad thing, but setting high standards ultimately means that you'll sometimes fall short.

The left loves to exploit these shortcomings--every Christian who falls short of perfection is a hypocrite; the social values candidate you voted for just got arrested for drunk driving. Haha, everything you believe and advocate is now discredited.

They got away with it for years, waving away the lies, hypocrisy, indiscretions, and criminal behavior from their own politicians while beating the right mercilessly with the missteps of their own. It's effective because the right always maintains a baseline of integrity not displayed by the left, as evidenced by comparing what happens to Republican politicians when they're caught in criminal behavior with what happens to Democrats. Republican voters and politicians reluctantly dump the malefactor while Democrats defend their guy and launch an offensive against those who demand accountability.

And then along came Trump. A guy just ripe for demonization by the left. I think it's fair to say that even his early supporters worried that the Democrats would successfully make him toxic to the general voting public with his boorish behavior, vulgarity, multiple bankruptcies and very public divorces.

But something strange happened. Not only did Donald Trump not care about attacks on his character, neither did anyone else. We saw this new paradigm assert itself over and over during the primary throughout repeated media predictions that this time he's gone too far and he's cooked.

This same indifference that helped Trump carry the election has continued into the early days of his administration. With it comes a refreshingly freeing state of mind. Personally, I don't feel in any way responsible for Trump, nor do I feel compelled to defend him against attack.

Good, I say. I want him to take attacks personally and deal out payback. I know I won't be the target, you will be.

"He's unpresidential! He'll destroy the integrity of the office!"

No. That's already happened. Remember, you elected a shit-talking jackass who takes selfies at state funerals when he's not giving stealth middle fingers to his opponents during debates. There is no dignity of the office. Not after Clinton and Obama.

"He's a narcissist! He's got totalitarian impulses!"

Yes, he's basically a mirror version of Obama. Except now, he'll be working for what I want. The end justifies the means. You taught me that.

"A sitting president going after the media. OMG!"

Oh, like Obama trashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? How about when he sent his lackeys to berate news reporters for failure to flatter him at all times. Oh, and NSA spying on the press. That was pretty great too.

"He won't show his taxes!"

Don't care. Where are Obama's college transcripts, by the way?

"He's a bully! Is this what you want? Someone who uses his power to bully other people?!!!"

And this is where everything funnels down to the very nexus of my change in attitude from, "Do unto others," to, "I will do unto you what you do unto me."

It's two words: Memories Pizza.

It was that moment that everything changed for me--not only the harassment, fake Yelp reviews and the death threats that forced them to temporarily close up shop--oh, that was bad enough, but the most powerful man on Earth bullying a couple of small town pizza owners from Indiana simply for expressing an opinion on a hypothetical asked of them by a reporter with a malicious agenda? That was when I snapped.

Do you remember?

It's this that sent me to a place from which I'll never return. I literally don't care what Donald Trump does because nothing he can do is worse than what the left has already done.

Donald Trump isn't the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They're the ****ing bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults, their riots, their violence, and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren't any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they've left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I'll consider his election a win.

Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I'll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not. Because, **** these people.

This new philosophy has freed me of more emotional angst that I can describe. Literally nothing the left says or does matters to me anymore. I don't care about their tantrums. I don't care about their accusations. I don't care if they say Trump is lying. I don't care if Trump is lying.

They created this Frankenstein. They own it. I am free of all obligation. I will never play defense again. I will attack, attack, attack, attack using their own tactics against them until they learn their lesson.

Everytime this thread might start to get a little interesting....SD comes in crying about how people don't like him for white supremacist views...and then this things gets derailed.

This thread would be a way better read if people just ignored his derailing attempts. (And probably Buc2's "**** Liberals" rants...)

This post seemed to get lost in the mix...

Mountaineer Buc wrote:SD bores me. Let's move on.

Populism

It fueled Bernie and it fueled Trump. Both parties are in the midst of some serious infighting as the populists from Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party have begun taking over and in the case of the GOP, have taken over.

I'll let one of you guys talk about the GOP, I'll talk about the DNC and what I see as going on over there.

Bernie's "Political Revolution" that he called for..(systematic takeover from city councils, to state legislatures, and up by progressives)..is beginning. The rank and file progressives want a complete overhaul of DNC leadership. Pelosi, The Clintons, The Obamas, all gone. They cite the loss of over 1,000 legislative seats since 2008 and a flawed strategy that leads from the top down and uses shame to influence policy. They want "identity politics" out the door as a campaign strategy and a greater focus on economic justice rather than social justice. The logic being you cannot have the latter without the former. I haven't seen any calls for a centrally planned economy, they want a market economy that works for them, not billionaires.

Gun control is out the door. The people don't want it. Gun crime is a symptom of a larger disease and that disease is poverty. There has been talk of reorienting the Federal Reserve to shift from "Unemployment" to "Poverty" as the basis for monetary policy. How that would work, I don't know.

They want money out of politics. They believe the money that finances campaigns gets between congress and the people that elected them. How they plan to do this, I don't know. But I assume getting rid of the citizens united ruling would be a big step in that direction.

As you can imagine, this irks the **** out of the establishment and they are already trying to stop Keith Ellison (Bernie's guy) from taking over the DNC. As they continue to caterwaul over the loss in Novermber, their ire is getting thrown on the "bernie bros" for costing Hillary the electoral college. As far as they are concerned, She won the popular vote and that in and of itself serves as proof that she was not a "flawed" candidate. I wanted to reach through my satellite radio and slap Mark Thompson in the head over that one last night.

So the DNC is in a battle, but its a battle between the rank and file and the very small remaining contingent of politicos still in Washington. The RNC fight is slam full of guys holding elected office. Are they going to get in line behind Trump and his populists or stay off his coattails expecting him to fail?

Gun Control is actually one of those things that I think both parties (in terms of population) are closer on than the lobbyist/elites let on. Very few people want to go door to door and get all the guns. And very few people think hand guns should be handed to everyone at their high school graduation. Somewhere in the middle, everyone is hanging out near some legislation that has enforceable laws with background checks and no loopholes. But, if you were to pay attention to the propaganda you would think it's Take the Guns vs Arm the Babies.

I would be willing to bet that most issues are similar to this. People in both parties are closer on issues than the propaganda suggests.

mightyleemoon wrote:Gun Control is actually one of those things that I think both parties (in terms of population) are closer on than the lobbyist/elites let on. Very few people want to go door to door and get all the guns. And very few people think hand guns should be handed to everyone at their high school graduation. Somewhere in the middle, everyone is hanging out near some legislation that has enforceable laws with background checks and no loopholes. But, if you were to pay attention to the propaganda you would think it's Take the Guns vs Arm the Babies.

I would be willing to bet that most issues are similar to this. People in both parties are closer on issues than the propaganda suggests.

Agreed, unfortunately the extreme ends of the spectrum get the most print since they are the loudest in most cases.

I support improved gun control legislation as it relates to mental health and background checks. There are privacy and HIPAA laws that need to be figured out to accommodate that goal, but imho that is where the 'middle ground' can be found.

Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.

bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.

I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protected from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.

Last edited by uscbucsfan on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.

Right? Just look at what requiring tests has done to make driving safer.

bucfanclw wrote:Gun wise I feel it is a person's right to own a gun, but for the safety of our citizens they should be able to safely operate it. That basically means no legal ownership for those with mental handicaps that would make them dangerous, and safety classes including a skills test (and some damn trigger discipline!) before obtaining a permit. If we require that to be able to drive I don't see why we can't require that to own a gun. I don't really see those as unreasonable requests but I've had a couple friends be offended at the very notion of any gun ownership regulation.

I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protection from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.

uscbucsfan wrote:I don't believe that any sort of gun legislation will quell gun issues to any significant degree. Expanded background checks, wait times, etc. They won't do anything at all. It's completely fruitless, which is why so many gun owners are against it for fear of slippery slope. Their fears are, "well that didn't work, what next?".

In my opinion, which will likely not be popular among gun owners, the only real solution is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Gun owners were getting sued so much in the 90s and early 2000s that this was enacted to provide gun manufacturers legal protections from actions caused by their products. The biggest catalyst for change in companies and products in the US is financials. This bill prevents gun manufacturers from self-regulation and safety enhancements, because they are protection from civil liabilities of their products. If gun companies were able to be sued for negligent practices and advertisement, this would eventually change their approach to the their products, creating safeguards to prevent stolen or illegal guns from being obtained through technology such as finger print scanner, gps chips, etc. Of course this would come at the cost of the consumer which would irritate gun owners, but some crazy number (between 89-93%) of gun crimes involve an illegal gun. This is something that we can use to the market to fix otherwise it is gun owners vs. anti-gun and neither have a valid solution with the culture we have built around guns.

Will this stop everything? Of course not...nothing in the realm of possibility will, but it would do a lot more than any sort of "gun control". I mean I guess stricter gun control will make some people feel better in a placebo sort of way, but do we really need government involvement for that purpose? And before the argument is presented about this not helping the billions of guns already in circulation...gun control, even bans on gun sales won't help that either.

Interesting. Thanks for your take

If you recall, it's something that Hillary and Bernie disagreed about at first until Bernie changed his mind. It won't go down with the current regime.

I love the second amendment for a bonus reason. When an ignorant leftist says Americans should have the right to healthcare, I bring up that as per our constitution we have the right to bear firearms. So you buy me an AR-15 and then we will discuss on implementing "right to healthcare" in the constitution.